Template talk:Usedwp
"Also better follows the naming convention: UsedXXX form" Better than what? (Yes, I can guess, but "en" is the code for "English", which your longer template doesn't specify; how will you name a template for material copied from the Spanish, for example?) And where is that convention written? Robin Patterson 14:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC) :I could point out that the language issue was not an obstacle when the AlsoWP template was created. :But it's true, I should not have used the term convention. Should have used the term "pattern". My thinking is that intuitively predictable patterns impose lower cognitive loads on users. Or I could boot the theory and simply observe that users like them. :Let's dispense with languages first. Take a look at how Usedwp works for this image: Image:Dessin chateau de guillaume le conquerant grand.jpg. Besides AlsoWP, the prefix wikipedia: in a link assumes en wikipedia, so there is precedent for assuming a default of en unless specified otherwise. It is true that it should support other WPs because our destiny is to follow the WP lead and be global. Taken together, the other WPs dwarf en wikipedia. But anyhow, with this template, En will be the default if not specified. It accepts the long name as specified in the native language, eg , , as well as the abbreviations which most folks know as the last two letters for domain names of their country- eg .ru .es etc. :Regarding "better", it is true that is was not necessary to add valuation to the description. It is a separate issue. Better/Worse implies a hidden premise. I see no reason why there must be only one template. Just so long as they both display the correct text, is there an issue? If this is zero sum deal, then ok what are the merits. Length of time typing extra letters? About a second. Length of time of users trying to find what the correct name is? Multiple minutes. Acronyms are notoriously difficult to remember unless they are used very frequently, and I have no problem making a redirect link from Usedwikipedia. :If we are writing templates only for the elite contributors, acronyms might be a good choice. But most folks aren't frequent contributors and don't remember enWP even if they have used it before. Predictability in names is good, and folks will try to use patterns they have seen. If they recall that the correct template is the language code plus an abbreviation for the collection they might guess enq for english wikiquote. Why? Because q: is the correct abbreviation for wikiquote. If it were two letters, they'd guess wq, but not WQ, because such abbreviations are not capitalized, but if they were, it would only be an initial capital not double. Wikipedia:InterWikimedia links But let's face it, most people don't know the en prefix much less the correct interwiki abbreviation. So the enWP pattern is an eminently useless template name to try to get people to remember, much less learn from to predict other correct license templates. It would be useless for them to try, because if you used your own logic you would have named the other one AlsoenWP. Simple is good. Simple is rememberable. People have also seen usedcommons, and so it is perfectly reasonable for them to predict usedwikipedia or usedwp. Further, the pattern could extend to all other foundation wikis we will draw from, wikibooks, wikiquotes, etc. ::[[User:Phlox|'~'' Phlox']] 22:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Folks prefer default assumption for other language wp's? At the cost of a wee bit more syntax, I can save folks from retyping the file name. EG: :Instead of: Comments? [[User:Phlox|'~'' Phlox']] 23:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Broken This template seems to be broken: if you look at a page like GRAMPS, then the link at "The original content was at" points to this wiki, not Wikipedia. Thurstan 04:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)